Islam's view on Marijuana
-
Ha ha definitely my thread
Just 2 things, talking about my own experience
1- The main difference between marijuana and alcohol is, when drinking you definitely cover your mind because you get to a point you don't know anymore what you are doing, that is why people start to speak loudly, fight etc etc after some glaces of alcohol. Instead while smoking you never get to a state where 'you don't know what you are doing'! At the max you go to sleep, that's it! So for me there is a big, huge difference there. Now why it is prohibited by law in major countries , I think it is just cultural thing.
2-Also smoking one join from time to time does not hurt but smoking frequently could hurt memory, breathing system etc again I think the tobacco is much much more dangerous than marijuana in term of addiction, --> it is more difficult to stop smoking tobacco than marijuana!!!!!! Definitely true!!!! still tobacco is not
hope this help
-
c0de,
thanks for a challange, you had many good arguments and i also gain some new knowledge (forex. similar to THC), but i feel like im wasting my time here, specially when i look at the last lines, to which i suppousedly should reply... so i am out. for now.
hope you enjoy arguing with herbman here, its definitely his thread, as his name tells O0i know, many muslims dont take bible seriously, so it will propably not be very strong argument, but still, see what the bible tells about cannabis
http//www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/mayjune96/kanehbosm.html -
err... no... where are you getting this from? By the way, do you still think that THC is produced in the brain? (lol) P
And you do?
My understanding was granted to me by Allah... not the drugs.
Unlike you, I am not crediting the drugs with inherent power.PeAcE
Yet all understandings come from "Allah" when you think about it. I understand that this concept fits in quranically (6104) but this is a clear cut abuse of that passage. Why don't I then claim that "It was God that gave me nutrition, not the food that I ate" and "It was God that fixed my crankshaft, not the mechanic with his spanner"? Because clearly, these are ridiculous statements, just because someone/something facilitates an improvement does not mean that God is suddenly disconnected from the process. Would you credit the guillotine with inherent power or does that also have "no power" and it chops people's heads off purely by the will of God, a magical entity separate from the physical realm which our creator has placed us in?
Likewise, the same argument can be extended to psychedelic substances. Tarmo does have a point in that nobody looks at prescription medicines which tend to be obscenely evil. There are an obscene number of "intoxicants" which "cloud the mind" and the majority of Muslims, ignorant of their subtle effects and interactions in the brain have no issues taking them. So while diacetylmorphine is an intoxicating tool of Shaitan, there is no issue with say, diazepam, risperidone, fluoxetine, etc. All of which "cloud the mind" and "intoxicate", some rendering the user emotionally blunted and unaware that they are in such a state.
As long as you live in the physical realm, you will be submitting to physical laws, the laws which our Creator has ordained, laws which cannot be broken. So why denounce a small amount of emergent phenomena such as the subjective effects of a small collection of psychedelic drugs when there is practically a world of harm that lies in the "halal"? I find that drugs are bad only when abused and of course, the abuse potential is very high for most of them.
Ha ha definitely my thread
Just 2 things, talking about my own experience
1- The main difference between marijuana and alcohol is, when drinking you definitely cover your mind because you get to a point you don't know anymore what you are doing, that is why people start to speak loudly, fight etc etc after some glaces of alcohol. Instead while smoking you never get to a state where 'you don't know what you are doing'! At the max you go to sleep, that's it! So for me there is a big, huge difference there. Now why it is prohibited by law in major countries , I think it is just cultural thing.
2-Also smoking one join from time to time does not hurt but smoking frequently could hurt memory, breathing system etc again I think the tobacco is much much more dangerous than marijuana in term of addiction, --> it is more difficult to stop smoking tobacco than marijuana!!!!!! Definitely true!!!! still tobacco is not
hope this help
Raw BS, marijuana also induces depersonalisation and other symptoms of anxiety which can lead to paranoid delusions and other psychotic thought processes. People can and do get to a point where they "do not know what they are doing".
-
Yet all understandings come from "Allah" when you think about it. I understand that this concept fits in quranically (6104) but this is a clear cut abuse of that passage. Why don't I then claim that "It was God that gave me nutrition, not the food that I ate" and "It was God that fixed my crankshaft, not the mechanic with his spanner"? Because clearly, these are ridiculous statements, just because someone/something facilitates an improvement does not mean that God is suddenly disconnected from the process. Would you credit the guillotine with inherent power or does that also have "no power" and it chops people's heads off purely by the will of God, a magical entity separate from the physical realm which our creator has placed us in?
I agree with al-Ghazali and the occasionalists when he posited that "when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire". My agreement with the occasionalists ends there, but I love quoting this example as I simply love it.
Likewise, the same argument can be extended to psychedelic substances. Tarmo does have a point in that nobody looks at prescription medicines which tend to be obscenely evil. There are an obscene number of "intoxicants" which "cloud the mind" and the majority of Muslims, ignorant of their subtle effects and interactions in the brain have no issues taking them. So while diacetylmorphine is an intoxicating tool of Shaitan?, there is no issue with say, diazepam, risperidone, fluoxetine, etc. All of which "cloud the mind" and "intoxicate", some rendering the user emotionally blunted and unaware that they are in such a state.
I completely agree with your sentiments, and Tarmo's opinion on this issue. I never challenged it. I only challenged the idea that marijuana is not "khamr".
As long as you live in the physical realm, you will be submitting to physical laws, the laws which our Creator has ordained, laws which cannot be broken. So why denounce a small amount of emergent phenomena such as the subjective effects of a small collection of psychedelic drugs when there is practically a world of harm that lies in the "halal"? I find that drugs are bad only when abused and of course, the abuse potential is very high for most of them.
I realize the insignificance of such a substance when compared with the other problems in society. This is part of the reason why I am against the so called "drug war"...
PeAcE
-
I agree with al-Ghazali and the occasionalists when he posited that "when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned directly by God rather than by the fire". My agreement with the occasionalists ends there, but I love quoting this example as I simply love it.
PeAcE
AFAIK the closest thing to this concept in the Quran is 226, but that describes something very different. So what is your justification for believing this to be true? It's almost magical and seemingly irrational to believe when we have enough insight into the workings of the universe to know that everything follows certain rules and causes have effects. Why place God in between a cause and an effect?
If you say that God gave you good understanding then that argument can be extended to bad understanding and following one's base desires, things which can also come from say, psychedelics or cannabis intoxication. Quranically, one has to be responsible for their own actions, desires and thought patterns/intentions (3044).
-
Why place God in between a cause and an effect?
Because ultimately, the "causes" all run out.
If you say that God gave you good understanding then that argument can be extended to bad understanding and following one's base desires,
I know. This is why I do not believe in "free will".
Quranically, one has to be responsible for their own actions, desires and thought patterns/intentions (3044).
Its much more complicated then that.
PeAcE
-
Because ultimately, the "causes" all run out.
Fallacious. It depends from what framework you use to look at the world. If you are using the big bang theory, and the evidence is overwhelming, there is no need for a "first cause". The "causes run out" because you attempt to ask "what came before the beginning of time?" and of course, you need time to determine cause and effect (unless you are going to prove that cause and effect are independent of time). In modern times we now know that time itself is a part of the universe and does not pass independent to the existence of the dimensions of space, nor can it. Interestingly enough at the beginning of the universe, everything was joined together as one in a zero dimensional point, time was not even in the picture, and all fundamental forces of the universe were one (or rather, every fundamental force is a different aspect of the same one force except that they come out to play when the amount of energy filling whatever space we are talking about dips below certain thresholds). If anything can be called a "first case" then "the universe" in that state of oneness can be considered a first cause. I'm sure it is a lot more complicated then that but I know this is the general picture.
I know. This is why I do not believe in "free will".
Please expand.
Its much more complicated then that.
PeAcE
As above. I fail to see the whole point of judgement when that principle is not upheld.
Peace.
-
Fallacious. It depends from what framework you use to look at the world.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself here, rite? How is my view "fallacious" if I am using a different framework (in which cause and effect hold true for finite things?... unless of course you somehow prove that the universe is infinite... but you can't.. because multi-verse and string-theories are not technically "sciences" yet, are they? But then again, even if they were, you would still not be able to disprove the alternative as it will always creep in to that argument)
If you are using the big bang theory, and the evidence is overwhelming, there is no need for a "first cause".
You are mistaken, you need a first cause in a big bang model of the universe, and such a model is totally deterministic.
Interestingly enough at the beginning of the universe, everything was joined together as one in a zero dimensional point, time was not even in the picture, and all fundamental forces of the universe were one (or rather, every fundamental force is a different aspect of the same one force except that they come out to play when the amount of energy filling whatever space we are talking about dips below certain thresholds). If anything can be called a "first case" then "the universe" in that state of oneness can be considered a first cause. I'm sure it is a lot more complicated then that but I know this is the general picture.
Again, you are mistaken. The first cause was the event which "began time". Or in terms of thermodynamics (which is the only indicator of an arrow of time) set the second law in motion.
The "causes run out" because you attempt to ask "what came before the beginning of time?" and of course, you need time to determine cause and effect (unless you are going to prove that cause and effect are independent of time).
Actually, in a deterministic universe, "time" can be shown to be an illusion. I have hope that the new Hologram theory will shed light on this idea.
Please expand.
I rather not.
As above. I fail to see the whole point of judgement when that principle is not upheld.
What "judgment" are you referring to? The person said marijuana was not "khamr"... I was disagreeing with him.
PeAcE
-
Quranically, one has to be responsible for their own actions, desires and thought patterns/intentions (3044).
Its much more complicated then that.
PeAcE
Can you at least expand on this? Do you hold a solipsistic quran? Don't get me wrong, the notion of one having to be responsible for their own actions desires and thought patterns and intentions is a paradox we all find hard to digest, but I think most do adhere at least because of the proven book. But I take it a step further and I think that the Quran offers a solution for this philosophical conundrum and that is the idea of compatibilism.